A Hypothetical Question

[RedAntifa]

For the sake of the question I am about to pose, I am assuming that a Communist revolution has taken place. I'm not entirely sure if a parliament would be established after a revolution, but if one was established would it be fair to allow the previous "mainstream" parties to become a part of parliament, even though under the stewardship of these parties the working class had been woefully treated?

I'm pretty new to left-wing politics so please be gentle. :lol:

[miltonwasfried...man]

Welcome comrade. If a true communist revolution has occurred there would no longer be a government, especially one with the bourgeoisie capitalist parties we currently have in western society. Communism by definition means no state and no classes, equality for all mankind.

[MarxSchmarx]

The sense I get from the OP's question is that they are talking more of socialism than communism. But never mind.

I suppose they are envisioning that there will be elections to make up this parliament, right? In that case, the elections should be free and fair and I don't think people should be systematically barred from running. Although I suspect that the current mainstream parties would have no more electoral support than the neo-Nazis that run in elections currently enjoy - which is to say that they would be free to stand for election, but they will get a tiny, insignificant fraction of the vote.

[RedAntifa]

Welcome comrade. If a true communist revolution has occurred there would no longer be a government, especially one with the bourgeoisie capitalist parties we currently have in western society. Communism by definition means no state and no classes, equality for all mankind.

Thanks for the reply. Since there is no state, who would allocate resources? For example, if a family had a five-seater car but were expecting another child and needed a seven-seater, would they simply go to the car dealer and have said car provided?


The sense I get from the OP's question is that they are talking more of socialism than communism. But never mind.

I suppose they are envisioning that there will be elections to make up this parliament, right? In that case, the elections should be free and fair and I don't think people should be systematically barred from running. Although I suspect that the current mainstream parties would have no more electoral support than the neo-Nazis that run in elections currently enjoy - which is to say that they would be free to stand for election, but they will get a tiny, insignificant fraction of the vote.

I have the feeling I may be tending towards Socialism rather than Communism, but at this early stage I'm more focussed on broadening my mind and learning as much as I can about the left. I'm not quite sure if I've already asked this indirectly, but if a Socialist revolution occured, and they tried to set up a parliament through democratic elections, what's to stop the "mainstream" parties from regaining power because the majority of the population don't know better? Would that not render a Socialist revolution useless?

[¿Que?]

I have the feeling I may be tending towards Socialism rather than Communism, but at this early stage I'm more focussed on broadening my mind and learning as much as I can about the left. I'm not quite sure if I've already asked this indirectly, but if a Socialist revolution occured, and they tried to set up a parliament through democratic elections, what's to stop the "mainstream" parties from regaining power because the majority of the population don't know better? Would that not render a Socialist revolution useless?
Do you think that maybe elections would go way different without the intrusion of imperialist corporate monopoly interests?

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm not quite sure if I've already asked this indirectly, but if a Socialist revolution occured, and they tried to set up a parliament through democratic elections, what's to stop the "mainstream" parties from regaining power because the majority of the population don't know better? Would that not render a Socialist revolution useless?

Well for there to be a good revolution the majority of the people should be on the side of socialism and have said that they no longer want the bourgeois political system. (unless you go the Blanquist route but fuck that)

Also, I think that one of the few reasons people still vote for the mainstream parties (in America) is the feeling that voting for anything else is throwing away their vote and they can only vote for the Democrats or Republicans. This is heavily influenced by the capitalist media.

[Forward Union]

Thanks for the reply. Since there is no state, who would allocate resources? For example, if a family had a five-seater car but were expecting another child and needed a seven-seater, would they simply go to the car dealer and have said car provided?

I think resources would be allocated, and exchanged regionally through the bourse de travail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourse_du_Travail) (Labour exchange). They have existed before, as experimental sub-economies in France. This is the basis of a Syndicalist economic model.

The main thrust of Communism is extending democracy to every aspect of society. If we can vote for politicians, on the basis that 'holding positions of power require a popular mandate' then why is this not extended to businesses?. Businesses operate as tyranny's, with no democracy, with wage-slaves doing all the hard work etc. In Communism all production would be managed by the workers themselves, democratically.


I have the feeling I may be tending towards Socialism rather than Communism, but at this early stage I'm more focussed on broadening my mind and learning as much as I can about the left. I'm not quite sure if I've already asked this indirectly, but if a Socialist revolution occured, and they tried to set up a parliament through democratic elections, what's to stop the "mainstream" parties from regaining power because the majority of the population don't know better? Would that not render a Socialist revolution useless?

The thing to remember is that Political parties today are not really the ones in power. Businesses hold far more power than any nation state or party, and most Partys are just mediators between popular and private interests. The industrialists and Bussiness owners are our real enemies, the ones we need to fight and whos power we need to depose. Once private interests are removed I'm not sure a party like the Republicans in the US, or Liberal Democracts in the UK would have much to do, they just wouldn't have a role in society anymore.

On the wider point, I don't think arguments for private ownership will have much sway in a post-revolutionary society, I mean, it would amount to; "hey, fancy giving up the democratic control over your own life and working for me for less money again?". In the same way we don't hear many Pro-Feudal arguments for a return to Feudalism. In fact, these political parties will be about as useful in Communism as Barons and Lords are in the financial sector today.

[Forward Union]

Thanks for the reply. Since there is no state, who would allocate resources? For example, if a family had a five-seater car but were expecting another child and needed a seven-seater, would they simply go to the car dealer and have said car provided?

I think resources would be allocated, and exchanged regionally through the bourse de travail (Labour exchange). They have existed before, as experimental sub-economies in France.

The main thrust of Communism is extending democracy to every aspect of society. If we can vote for politicians, on the basis of them having positions of power, thus needing popular mandate then why is this not extended to businesses. Businesses operate as tyranny's, with no democracy, with wage-slaves doing all the hard work etc. In Communism all production would be managed by the workers themselves.


I'm not quite sure if I've already asked this indirectly, but if a Socialist revolution occured, and they tried to set up a parliament through democratic elections, what's to stop the "mainstream" parties from regaining power because the majority of the population don't know better? Would that not render a Socialist revolution useless?

The thing to remember is that Political parties today are not really the ones in power. Businesses hold far more power than any nation state or party, and most Partys are just mediators between popular and private interests. Once private interests are removed I'm not sure a party like the Republicans or Liberal Democracts would have much to do.

On the wider point, I don't think arguments for private ownership will have much sway in a post-revolutionary society "hey, fancy giving up your democratic control over your own life and working for me for less money again?". In the same way we son't hear many Pro-Feudal arguments for a return to Feudalism. In fact, these political parties will be about as useful in Communism as Barons and Lords are in the financial sector today.


I have the feeling I may be tending towards Socialism rather than Communism, but at this early stage I'm more focussed on broadening my mind and learning as much as I can about the left.

Socialism is a broad term, including Communism etc. What you might want to look into is Social Democracy, the idea that Capitalism ought to be reformed, democracy extended into businesses, and that the state should allocate tax money to the well being of the people.

[Blake's Baby]

I think the OP is being confused by Leninist periodisation and the existence of social democracy.

When most of us refer to 'Socialism' we don't mean 'the period after the revolution but before full communism'. It's only Leninists who have that usage. Don't let it fool you.

Also, by 'Socialism' we don't mean 'whatever some European Socialist Parties do when they're in power'. That's no more 'Socialist' than 'whatever the American Democratic Party does in power' is 'democratic'. What we tend to call that is 'social democracy', basically running the state with a slightly higher level of taxation on the rich.

Non-Leninist, non-social democratic RevLefters when they say 'Socialism' generally use it interchangeably with 'Communism'. A classless, communal society without states, borders or money. So a 'socialist' revolution or society isn't different to a 'communist' revolution or society.

So, what you seem to be talking about is the revolution, and askinbg whether afterwards there will be political democracy.

In short, no, not for a little while, not as we understand it now. The revolution is a revolution against capitalism which underpins national states and all the rest of it. All 'countries' will be effectively abolished, national governments will cease to exist. The working class organising itself in the workers' councils (the Russian word for council is 'soviet' hence the Soviet Union - the union of councils) will take over administration of society. As parties are an expression of class interests, the parties that we know now will disappear as the classes that created them cease to have any say in the running of society.

There will undoubtedly be different political currents in the councils because different workers have different ideas about how things need to work, but I don't see pro-capitalist parties really getting a look in to be honest. Why is anyone going to want to go back to slavery and hatred after we've already had the revolution? So at most I can see the different currents as being essentially, Marxists and Anarchists. Maybe some different flavours but essentially I think that's it.